W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Action item 2003-11-03 OperationName feature

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:04:58 -0500
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040122110458.C16027@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Paul,

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:29:04AM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> This is where a clear method of dispatch reaps rewards: it's very easy 
> for an intermediary to access control, route, and dispatch based on one
> thing - the SOAP body GED. Duplicating dispatch in SOAPAction only 
> confuses matters IME.

Mostly agreed.

I believe that a clear, self-descriptive dispatch mechanism is
absolutely critical. And though I believe it would be more efficient, I
don't believe we have to have a single place in a SOAP message where
operations must go, since that cat is out of the bag, viz a viz
wsa:action, SOAPAction, implicit operations, and
inherited-from-the-application-protocol operations.

As it relates to Umit's proposal then, I think we need to see it tie
together these other methods of specifying operations, rather than just
be YADM (Yet Another Dispatch Mechanism).  Hence my inquiry into adding
support for application protocols.  But we need to support the other
means of specifying operations too (listed above), IMO.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 11:05:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT